Why Don't We Fly?

by Jim Davidson

Special to The Libertarian Enterprise

Not long ago, I was
driving down a highway paid for by robbing
innocent taxpayers at the gasoline pump, passing various highway
signs posted by government officials paid by the further theft of
taxpayer money at every cash register in the state, and examining
numerous features of my vehicle whose interior design and engine
configuration reflected the whims of other government officials
whose pay was extracted from the paychecks of every taxpayer in the
nation. I noticed a sign on my dashboard control console near the
fuel gauge telling me that only unleaded fuel should be put in the
gas tank, due to a government regulation. The steering wheel was
comfortably padded, because yet other government officials felt I
shouldn't hurt my head in an accident. As I leaned forward to see
the control console over the bulky airbag compartment filling the
center of the steering wheel, I was restrained by the automatic
shoulder harness system. As it actively restrained my movement
with a tensioning mechanism, I was amused to recall that it was
labelled a "passive restraint."
Here I was in a vehicle designed somewhat more in Washington,
DC than in Detroit, Michigan stuck in traffic which was constrained
by a highway designed in Austin, Texas while a bus passed by in a
special lane designed by the county government (and paid for by a
special sales tax surcharge) when I began to think: why don't I fly?
"Really," it struck me at just that moment, "Why do we stick to
the surface when just 100 feet up there is clear air in every
direction and absolutely no traffic?" So I began to think about
what prevented me from purchasing a vehicle that would simply take
me from my home through the air to my every destination.
If I were designing the highway system in this country, it
would mostly consist of grass and trees. Most of the vehicles
would move through the air most of the time. Free to move in three
dimensions, there would be far fewer accidents. No longer would
traffic pile up in a line, unable to move left or right. Instead,
with fully six directions in which to move, traffic would be
impressively hard to accumulate.
Using satellites to provide navigation fixes in all three
dimensions, traffic "control" would be simple. A Princeton
physicist, Dr. Gerard K. O'Neill came up with a practical, patented
method for satellite facilitated air navigation in the 1970s.
Curiously, the government operated system providing air traffic
control around America's airports remains antiquated, relying on
ground based radar which greatly limits its effectiveness.
Current technology offers many techniques for vertical takeoff
and landing, as well as a variety of short takeoff and landing
systems. Indeed, much of this technology dates to the 1960s.
Moreover, lighter-than-air systems dating to the Nineteenth Century
allow for highly controlled movement.
Clearly a system of personal transportation by air makes a
great deal of sense. It is safer to travel by air than on the
surface of the planet, due in no small measure to being able to
move in three dimensions rather than two as well as the obvious
benefits of a greater volume of space which lessens the likelihood
of two vehicles needing to occupy the same location at one time.
Indeed, the greatest hazards to aircraft occur at takeoff and
landing, and these are exacerbated by the large number of vehicles
that take off and land at government operated landing fields or
"airports." If more landing fields were available (for example,
one in every back yard), the traffic would be less dense and safety
would be enhanced.
The technology clearly exists for small private aircraft of a
variety of configurations which can takeoff on short stretches of
pavement, as well as many types which rise straight up including
helicopters, tilt-rotor aircraft, ducted fan jet aircraft, and
lighter-than-air craft.
Such an approach to individual and family travel is also
consistent with good economics. Imagine the savings! Air presents
much less drag than any road surface, lowering fuel costs and
reducing air pollution. Modern small aircraft have fewer systems
than modern automobiles, though many of the "features" of today's
cars may be attributed to government interference. Nevertheless,
simpler vehicles produced in the same number should be less costly.
What's more, air vehicles require less pavement, giving landowners
the chance to use their property for homes, parks, wild areas,
agriculture, or a host of other purposes. Finally, air travel is
much faster, both because it is more direct and because less drag
means more fuel can be used to increase speed rather than overcome
friction with the ground.
So what is stopping us? Mostly, government interference. Many
of the vehicles designed to operate as "air cars" cannot be
licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) under their
current guidelines. Other vehicles which need no licensing,
so-called "ultralight" aircraft may not be flow over populated
areas, making their use as commuter vehicles unavailable.
Regulations of all kinds limit the advance of aircraft
development. For example, supersonic transport aircraft are
prevented from operating over the US by law. Private airport
operators must meet many government criteria, and are burdened with
taxes they must collect for the government as well as property
taxes. Public airports provide subsidized competition, reducing
the likelihood of successful private airport development.
Whenever government interferes in the marketplace, you can be
sure that some private interests are better served by the way
things are. So who benefits from the current system?
The makers of automobiles and the contractors who build roads
and highways certainly benefit. These companies don't shirk from
holding their hands out for government support when they need it,
even though they frequently object when the government that buys
vehicles from them under contract, pays for the concrete they cast,
limits access to their markets by domestic and foreign competitors,
and guarantees their loans then has the audacity to impose
standards and regulations upon them.
Curiously, many of the manufacturers of aircraft are also
comfortable with the present situation, especially those who
produce the larger transport aircraft. These companies do
significant business as NASA and Defense contractors, get
significant protection from foreign competition, and are able to
work their own way through the maze of Federal regulations.
Regulations tend to be a barrier to entry in the marketplace,
reducing the chances for any new competitor, especially one with an
innovative solution.
As consumers of transportation products and services, we each
lose a great deal. We lose friends and relatives in traffic
accidents which need not occur. We lose a portion of our earnings
to excess fuel costs. We lose a part of our environment to steel
bridges and sixteen lane freeways. We lose a part of every day
waiting in traffic when freedom is just a few dozen feet above our
heads.
Those who fly at the controls of aircraft regularly know of an
experience rarely appreciated by those who guide surface vehicles
and only rarely fly as passengers. There is a tremendous beauty to
the Earth best appreciated from great altitude. There is a joy to
flying past the clouds, soaring above the ground, powering through
the air. These aesthetic benefits are also denied to consumers who
are denied the choice of personal air transportation.
If government regulations on aircraft design, production, and
operation were eliminated, would the market demand faster, cheaper,
more convenient personal air vehicles? Would entrepreneurs rise to
the challenge and be able to provide vehicles which leave the
average driveway or neighborhood street, power through the air, and
land atop a parking garage downtown minutes later?
Perhaps not. Market forces may determine an outcome different
from my desires. Somehow, I doubt it. For thousands of years, men
have yearned to fly, and created legends such as that of Daedalus
and Icarus to fulfill those dreams. For hundreds of years, since
1783, we have known how to fly. For those two centuries and more,
we have been constantly improving our flight technology, touching
the Moon and reaching for the stars.
Such high achievers won't be stuck in traffic jams forever.

Jim Davidson has always been a liberty minded individualist,
but got very serious about it after the state shut down his space
tourism company, Space Travel Services, in 1991. Jim has a
bachelor's in history from Columbia (1985), an MBA in marketing
from Rice (1987), has worked in aerospace, software, banking, real
estate, and is currently Chief Operating Officer of a $3 million
revenues medical company. Among his other interests, Jim has been
president of the Houston Space Society and scubas whenever he can.

Don't sacrifice Principles to Politics! The Libertarian party
must not abdicate its position as the party of principle. That it
might do so by nominating a candidate for President who endorses
the government's right to tax us, and even advocates taxation, is a
clear and present danger. The only way to protect LP integrity is
to support Rick Tompkins. See his Web page at:
http://www.nguworld.com/rick96/.
Send contributions NOW to: Rick Tompkins, Libertarian, for President;
8129 N. 35th Ave. #262, Phoenix, AZ 85051.

Next to advance to the next article, or
Previous to return to the previous article, or
Index to return to The Libertarian
Enterprise, Number 4, January, 1996.